Saturday, 8 March 2014

MPACUK Blames the West For the Woolwich Murder

First posted: 23rd May, 2013

Asghar Bukhari, of MPACUK

“What is the government likely to do apart
from condemn the violence and deny the link between our own foreign policy and
domestic acts of violence by some of Britain's Muslims? Nothing whatsoever.
Despite the Muslim Public Affairs Committee's efforts, the depressingly
predictable and familiar cycle of violence is likely to continue until the
government accepts the real link between the two. Only then will any solution
be within reach.”

The leader of the Muslim Public Affairs (MPACUK),
Asghar Bukhari, when interviewed by the BBC, placed the entire blame for the
murder in Woolwich on the West. He didn’t have a single word to say about totalitarian Islamism and
certainly not about jihad in Islam itself or in the Koran. No. The kuffar,
as always, is entirely to blame. And Muslims, as always, are only ever passive
victims. But there’s nothing new here.

Even when Muhammad, and later Muslim
leaders, invaded all the surrounding empires and countries, they said it was
all a matter of defence. The Muslim
imperialist empires conquered a third of the world defensively. After all, as the saying goes, “The best form of
defence is attack.”

So Muslims rationalise their endless acts
of aggression and war in terms of defence and their being attacked by infidels. That’s also
the language of the Koran. The gimmick of defence was also the language of Adolf Hitler when he
first invaded the Sudetenland, then the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland.
All these countries were said to be either a threat to Germany or had supposedly already
attacked it.

Asghar Bukhari specifically singles out
Afghanistan and Iraq. Nonetheless, Western troops no longer ‘occupy’ Iraq. This
country now has a Shia Muslim government. That’s unless MPACUK is condoning
retrospective retribution or revenge for what Western troops did in Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, there are 66,000 US
troops in that country. There are vast swathes of the country in which there
are no Western soldiers at all. Of course 66,000 soldiers can still do much
damage; but it still can’t be called an ‘occupation’ (a buzzword from both the Left
and from Muslims).

MPACUK has also conveniently forgotten why
we went into Afghanistan in the first place – because of 9/11 and the numerous
terrorist bases that litter that country and the Pakistani borders with
Afghanistan. If we hadn’t gone in, the Taliban would probably rule the
entire country today. May be this is what is truly behind the Islamists of MPACUK –
they wouldn’t have minded complete Taliban rule in Afghanistan (just as the
Islamist leaders of Pakistan wanted, and still want, the Taliban to rule there).

Let’s stop the bullshit. It’s not ‘all
about Afghanistan and Iraq’.

Take Osama bin Laden. He was mainly motivated
by the presence of US personnel in Saudi Arabia (certainly not 'occupiers'); not by Afghanistan, Iraq or even
Palestine. Take another example. Three pre-Afghanistan and pre-Iraq bombings
were carried out by Muslim group in 1977 in Washington . These bombings were a
response to the showing of a ('blasphemous') film about the prophet Mohammed.

And what about all the Islamic acts of
violence and terrorism that aren’t to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or any ‘occupations’?
What about the bombing of Hebdo’s offices in Paris? The fatwa on Salman
Rushdie? The riots and deaths because of the Muhammad cartoons and the
‘Innocence of Muslims’? The killing of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh? The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood started its
own bombing, assassination and killing campaign in the 1920s. Islamic terrorism
continued up to the 1960s and beyond. The list is endless.

MPACUK’s focus on Afghanistan is
disingenuous in the extreme.

Islamists will always rationalise jihad in
terms of defence. This has happened throughout those 1,350 years of jihad. Islamist
bombings will still occur even if we pulled out of Afghanistan. And what about
MPACUK’s other rationalisation of jihad and its real monomania – Israel?

It doesn't matter about ‘foreign intervention’:
many Muslims kill people simply because they are ‘unbelievers’. The deaths and
persecutions in the Muslim world are largely oblivious to Western
interventions; they are about jihad and sharia law - about Islam. The Islamic jihad
reached its peak when the Islamic world was the
great power; not when it was ‘oppressed’ by the West.

"MPACUK calls on Muslims to get a
little extreme; no we call on Muslims to get very extreme. The time for
moderation is over, the time for passive acceptance is gone, no longer are we
held back by empty platitudes of ‘serving the community’. Muslims need to get
active and get vocal now...."

- MPACUK, 2010

MAPCUK also calls for more ‘democratic activity’ from Muslims. However, democratic activity only when it comes to
Islamic issues and the situation of Muslims in the world. MPACUK is an utterly
communalist/sectarian in nature – as its name suggests. Everything it says
is said through either the prism of Islam or the situation of Muslims either in
the UK or abroad. In fact it’s hardly worth stressing ‘democratic involvement’
if that involvement is completely determined by Islam and the affairs of
Muslims as Muslims. MPACUK may as well agitate for full sharia law - it would
have the same results.

Despite all that, MPACUK has also spoken
out against democratic activity; though it hasn’t spoken out against political activity. It has called for
Muslims ‘to get more extreme’ and much else. It is taking, in fact, the Muslim
Brotherhood approach of using democracy and democratic means to further the
cause of Islam and Muslims – ultimately, to bring about sharia law and Muslim
self-rule. All this, again, partly through the means of British democratic
processes.

MPACUK is not against Islamic terrorism. It
rationalises, justifies and explains it. Nonetheless, like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,
it also believes that by using Western (non-Islamic) democratic
processes,
it can further both Islam and the cause of Muslims. That is, MPACUK
essentially uses
democracy in order to destroy democracy. That's why it prefers
'democratic involvement' to what it sees as often counter-productive
examples of Islamic terrorism.